Loading...
Loading...
Browse all stories on DeepNewz
VisitTrump's response to potential gag order in classified documents case
Complies with gag order • 33%
Violates gag order • 33%
Files appeal against gag order • 33%
Official statements or legal filings by Trump or his legal team
Judge Cannon Reviews Constitutionality of Jack Smith's Appointment and Potential Gag Order on Trump in Classified Documents Case
Jun 24, 2024, 04:31 PM
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is hearing arguments on June 24 regarding the constitutionality of Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel. The debate centers on whether Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which mandates that U.S. Attorneys be Senate-confirmed after being presidentially nominated. Judge Cannon's ruling could potentially invalidate Smith's appointment, impacting the case against former President Donald Trump. Additionally, Judge Cannon is considering a motion to impose a gag order on Trump to prevent him from making inflammatory statements about FBI agents involved in his classified documents case. Prosecutors argue that Trump's comments could endanger law enforcement officers, while the defense claims the special counsel's office is unlawfully funded under the appropriations clause of the Constitution. Stephen Miller's America First Legal was not allowed to file as a friend of the court opposing the gag order, and prosecutor David Harbach was admonished by Cannon for his tone during the hearing.
View original story
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
Multiple violations • 33%
Single violation • 33%
No violations • 34%
Challenge appointment of Special Counsel • 25%
Constitutional immunity as President-elect • 25%
Procedural errors • 25%
Other legal strategy • 25%
Gag order upheld • 25%
Gag order overturned • 25%
Modified gag order • 25%
Claim dismissed • 25%
Case Dismissed • 25%
Case Proceeds • 25%
Plea Deal • 25%
Trial and Verdict • 25%
Trump appeals decision • 25%
Trump seeks settlement • 25%
Trump changes legal team • 25%
No significant change • 25%
Condemns the pardons • 25%
Supports the pardons • 25%
No comment • 25%
Mixed response • 25%
By September 30, 2024 • 33%
By December 31, 2024 • 33%
Not decided by December 31, 2024 • 34%
Constitutional • 50%
Unconstitutional • 50%
Denied to file as friend of the court • 33%
Allowed to file as friend of the court • 33%
Withdraws request to file • 33%